ReviewSurgery open science2024
Comprehensive systematic review on the self-gripping mesh vs sutured mesh in inguinal hernia repair.
Review in Surgery open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair: ten recommendations to optimize surgical outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to analyse the randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing the self-gripping mesh (SGM) with sutured mesh fixation (SMF) in open inguinal hernia repair. Materials and methods: RCTs comparing SGM with SMF in open inguinal hernia repair were selected from medical electronic databases and analysis was performed using the principles of meta-analysis with RevMan version 5 statistical software. Results: Seventeen RCTs involving 3863 patients were used for the final analysis. In the random effect model analysis, the operative time [mean difference - 7.72, 95 %, CI (-9.08, -6.35), Z = 11.07, Conclusion: SGM failed to demonstrate a clinical advantage over SMF in terms of perioperative outcomes although the duration of surgery was shorter in SGM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.